dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
384
share rss forum feed


gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

Watch out for upsell

I dunno about this story, something smells of BS.
If she got talked into a higher tier or into a router she doesnt need. Or when they came to install the router and she had a chock full of virus on her computer, they would charge extra for that.
The story doesnt go into much detail, I guess it could be true but there are probably other circumstance that caused her to be charged that much.
I have seen thier sales department take advantage of seniors and less technically inclined people to upsell before though.
--
Let them eat FIBER!


DC DSL
There's a reason I'm Command.
Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2

1 recommendation

T is notorious for pulling all sorts of fast ones, like entering orders differently from what the customer specified and claiming that's what the customer ordered. Or, giving confirmation of service cancellation, then continuing to bill and demanding that you keep paying until they issue a final statement (and being told you aren't entitled to a refund because your service isn't really canceled until whenever their side says so).
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following."


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:13
reply to gaforces
There is no such thing as a router that's not needed with Uverse - AT&T requires the use of their router due to the authentication system they use, so you will be using their router whether you want to or not. The $149 install charge also sounds like their normal charge to me; they probably didn't even look at her computer.

What do you mean "not much detail?" Looks like almost everything's broken down to me:
$100 "Internet Gateway" (aka the "free equipment" they promised)
$149 installation
$29.95 first full month of service
So we're now at almost $279. The article then says there were "prorated charges" which means the bill also included a partial month (so up to another $29.95), and then all the usual AT&T taxes, surcharges and fees for almost 2 months of service. $337 is not unreasonable (well, it is for 2 months of internet access, but how they got to that number is not).

/M


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to gaforces
said by gaforces:

I dunno about this story, something smells of BS.

She let her service lapse. From AT&T's point of view, she was a "new customer". It sucks, but it is the way things are.

As for the changes, apparently AT&T is retiring the older ADSL equipment as they replace it. How can they continue to provide "legacy"service to customers when the legacy hardware is gone? IP-DSLAM isn't the same as traditional ADSL, and traditional ADSL modems won't work with IP-DSLAM service.

My take on this is simply that the customer should take the AT&T upgrade notice very seriously, and decide whether the upgrade is worth the effort (don't wait until they disconnect you to upgrade!) or a change of provider is in order.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to mackey
I apparently missed some of the article.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to NormanS
I agree! As much as I'm not a fan of AT&T, they do have a right to discontinue a service. Comcast discontinued digital phone on me and made me move to digital voice. (didn't care for that) but what could I do? The switch was sold and I couldn't expect them to offer a service to me forever.

The only thing I see an issue with is that AT&T should have migrated the customers for no charge. AT&T made a HUGE effort to drive DSL sales a few years back.. I even recall a quote made by the CEO at the time stating "Yes, $14.95 DSL is a loss leader, and U-Verse isn't available YET, but it's easier to market a new product to a captive audience than it is to find new customers"...

AT&T knew what it was doing years back when they loaded up DSL consumers.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by fiberguy:

The only thing I see an issue with is that AT&T should have migrated the customers for no charge.

Would have been a better way than disconnecting the unresponsive customer. Except that there would still be complainers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum